INNOVATION CHALLENGE HANDBOOK

WASH EVIDENCE CHALLENGEFunding to support collaborations between innovators, researchers and practitioners to develop robust evidence on humanitarian WASH innovations

2

EVID

ENCE

CH

ALLE

NGE

ABOUT THIS CHALLENGE 3

THE PROBLEM 5

THE CHALLENGE 7

ELIGIBILITY 8

DETAILED SELECTION CRITERIA 9

FUNDING AVAILABLE 13

STAGES OF WORK 14

CHALLENGE TIMELINE 15

YOUR APPLICATION 17

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS 18

GLOSSARY 20

CONTENTS

3

EVID

ENCE

CH

ALLE

NGE ABOUT THIS CHALLENGE

Elrha’s Humanitarian Innovation Fund (HIF) aims to improve outcomes for people affected by humanitarian crises by identifying, nurturing and sharing more effective and scalable solutions. To achieve this, we fund innovations that aim to improve the effectiveness of humanitarian response.

Our Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) focus area aims to explore and grow the potential for innovation to improve humanitarian WASH.

Our work is entirely problem-led. Since 2013, we have invested in a rich body of research around problems, been advised by sector experts on which problems to focus on, and designed Innovation Challenges specifically to address these problems. Over the past six years, we have funded over 40 WASH innovations, ranging from soap alternatives to surface water drainage guidance and rapid community engagement approaches. Our WASH Innovation Catalogue provides an overview of the projects we have funded.

Most of these innovations are at the pilot stage, 1 and many have demonstrated potential to address key problems in the sector. However, ‘breaking through’ this pilot stage and gaining wider uptake is a core challenge innovators face. Our Too tough to scale? report identified key barriers to scaling innovation in the humanitarian sector, including a lack of appropriate funding and a lack of evidence of impact. And impact isn’t the only type of evidence needed. In order for innovations to realise wider uptake, innovators, humanitarian agencies, funders, and other stakeholders require various types of evidence to meet their distinct needs.

To ensure we invest in strategic, problem-led innovation and in line with our core strategic priorities, the HIF is committed to providing support across the entire lifecycle of innovation. This means funding innovations from their early stages through to dissemination and uptake.

This Challenge provides funding for previous HIF WASH grantees who have successfully carried out small pilots of their intervention but are not yet ready to scale. The aim is to help innovators define and respond to their evidence needs, and to learn more about their proposed intervention across a range of humanitarian settings. We also want to encourage researchers and humanitarian agencies to engage with our WASH Catalogue and innovations, and consider those which hold the most potential.

1 Pilot: Testing a potential solution to learn whether and how it works in a complex real-world environment. See more in the ‘Pilot’ section of our Humanitarian Innovation Guide.

4

EVID

ENCE

CH

ALLE

NGE Through this Challenge, we will help our strongest WASH

innovations adapt, improve and begin their journey to scale, ensuring the priority WASH problems we have identified are addressed at scale. Together, we can ensure the WASH sector’s investment in innovation is turned into real impact on the ground, and that innovations truly fulfil their potential to save lives and improve outcomes for people affected by crises.

To apply for the Challenge, fill out the Expression of Interest (EOI) via our Common Grants Application platform.

– Already have an account? Log in to start an application.

– Don’t have an account? Sign up to open an account and start an application.

5

EVID

ENCE

CH

ALLE

NGE THE PROBLEM

Evidence is key to driving the sustainable and ethical uptake of innovation. This is especially the case in the humanitarian sector, where new tools, approaches or services can have a direct impact on the health, dignity and well-being of populations affected by crisis. Relevant, usable and rigorous evidence generated through appropriate research, testing and evaluation can be critical for scaling innovation in this context ( Ramalingam et al., 2015 ).

Evidence required for scaling innovation is often thought about in terms of impact – what outcomes does the innovation create, what problems does it solve, and how is this proven (Obrecht, forthcoming)? Often defined as ‘effectiveness’, this approach is focused on establishing a causal relationship between the innovation and a desired outcome using rigorous research methods such as randomised controlled trials. But a whole range of evidence needs present themselves in relation to humanitarian innovation, and effectiveness is not always the type that is called for.

ASSESSING EVIDENCE NEEDSEvidence can be defined by its use: the questions that need to be answered and who is asking these questions. For example, innovators need feedback to improve the design of their solutions, to prove the value of their innovation, or develop their strategy and business models. Humanitarian agencies need practical information on how an innovation compares to existing practice, as well as whether – and where – to adopt an innovation. Funders need compelling evidence on how their investment might make the biggest difference. Each of these needs may well require a different type of evidence. While measuring effectiveness is key at certain points in the innovation lifecycle, research that assesses other elements such as the acceptability, usability, cost, efficiency, feasibility or sustainability of solutions might, at other points, be just as relevant.

A growing number of resources offer frameworks for assessing evidence requirements, choosing appropriate methods to gather evidence, and determining the quality of evidence ( Blanchet et al., 2018; Humanitarian Innovation Guide; BOND; Stern, 2015; Christoplos, 2017 ), but there are still substantial gaps in the quantity and quality of evidence for humanitarian WASH interventions ( Blanchet et al., 2017; D’Mello-Guyett et al., 2018).

DESIGNING ROBUST AND ADAPTABLE RESEARCH TO ADDRESS GAPSGenerating evidence is challenging in humanitarian settings. Time pressures often mean that immediate response is prioritised over research; and contextual factors such as rapidly changing and unstable environments, dynamic flows of people, and lack of access due to security concerns add to the list of risks researchers must manage ( Yates et al., 2017; Ramesh et al., 2015).

6

EVID

ENCE

CH

ALLE

NGE Additionally, the lack of baseline data demonstrating the effectiveness of current

practice means that innovators and researchers may also have to quantify the status quo before they can begin to measure their own comparative performance ( Elrha, 2018). For example, in certain contexts, some of the most commonly implemented WASH interventions are significantly under-researched; these include bucket chlorination, latrine building, handwashing promotion ( Blanchet et al., 2017), water trucking, environmental drainage/clean-up, and the cost-effectiveness of interventions ( Yates et al., 2017).

Another challenge is the lack of consistency in measuring impact indicators, which makes it difficult to compare evaluation results and outcomes ( Blanchet et al., 2015).

Lastly, an overarching challenge is the lack of long-term funding for research collaborations other than those generating evidence of impact (or effectiveness). Funding in the humanitarian sector tends to be inflexible and short-term ( Elrha, 2018). This makes it difficult to conduct more exploratory types of research. There is a significant missed opportunity for innovators, researchers, and humanitarian practitioners to work together on defining evidence requirements and developing mutually interesting learning opportunities.

7

EVID

ENCE

CH

ALLE

NGE THE CHALLENGE

We are looking for robust research studies that generate practical, comparative evidence around HIF-funded WASH innovations.

The evidence will be useful for both the innovations themselves and the humanitarian sector as a whole. These studies need to be collaborations between WASH innovators, researchers and humanitarian agencies.

This Innovation Challenge aims to create:

– Evidence to enable scaling While our WASH portfolio includes a range of promising innovations, most of them are at pilot stage. We want to build further evidence around these and help the strongest innovations adapt, scale and play a part in addressing some of the most pressing challenges in humanitarian WASH.

– Innovative research and new evidence for the sector Our ambition is to fund new, adaptive types of research appropriate for humanitarian innovation, to learn what works, and to add to the general evidence base of the humanitarian WASH sector.

– Partnerships for humanitarian research and innovation We want to create a space for leading WASH humanitarian innovators, researchers and humanitarian agencies to define appropriate evidence needs for a WASH innovation together, and to provide a mandate for the research partner to lead the design of a robust process to collect this evidence.

8

EVID

ENCE

CH

ALLE

NGE

2 The Catalogue also includes R2HC-funded studies, but these are not eligible for this Challenge.

3 This includes universities, research institutions, research consultancies and other organisations specialised in conducting evaluation research.

4 The humanitarian operational partner must be a separate organisation and can’t be a different country office for the same organisation.

ELIGIBILITYTo be eligible to apply for the Challenge, proposals must:

1. Include at least one current or previous HIF-funded WASH innovation. Most eligible projects appear in our WASH Innovation Catalogue. 2 The chosen HIF WASH innovation should have completed at least one pilot in at least one humanitarian setting.

2. Include a partnership made up of at least one of each of the following: a HIF-funded WASH innovation, an academic or research institution, 3 and an operational humanitarian partner committed to testing the innovation in a humanitarian setting.

– If the innovation was originally developed by, or partly by, an academic institution, this institution can apply as the ‘HIF innovator’ partner in this Challenge, but must have an additional academic or research institution as a partner. This is to ensure the reliability and validity of the research and mitigate bias.

– If the innovation was originally developed by, or partly by, an operational humanitarian partner, this organisation can apply as the ‘HIF innovator’ partner in this Challenge, but must have an additional operational humanitarian organisation as a partner. 4 This is to broaden the uptake pathways for the innovation.

– Any of the partners applying can be the formal lead applicant. However, while innovators, research institutions and humanitarian agencies are expected to work together on defining the evidence needs of the innovation that would help it to adapt and scale, the research partner is expected to lead on designing and carrying out the research. We encourage confirmed project partners to develop their proposal as a team. Collaborations with local partners are encouraged.

3. Contain a comparative element for the research. See the first criterion for details.

Proposals from eligible applicants will be evaluated based on the more detailed selection criteria described in the following section.

9

EVID

ENCE

CH

ALLE

NGE DETAILED SELECTION

CRITERIAWe will evaluate and select proposals based on the following key criteria.

1. COMPARATIVE RESEARCHWe expect research studies to carry out comparative research of a HIF-funded WASH innovation in one (or more) humanitarian settings. Applicants are expected to define what kind of comparison would help to address the evidence needs of their chosen innovation. For example, the comparison could be to existing practice or another baseline, sector or technical standards, another innovation, or to the performance of the innovation in a different humanitarian setting(s). Factors that may differentiate settings include, but are not limited to, phase of humanitarian response (eg, acute emergencies, protracted emergencies), site (eg, camp, urban), geography, environmental conditions, type of humanitarian crisis (including natural disasters, conflicts, or complex emergencies, either at the regional, national or sub-national levels, within lower or middle income countries), or identity characteristics of people interacting with the innovation (eg, age, disability, gender, cultural practices). Control groups may be used as comparators if it is possible, useful and ethical to do so.

2. COLLABORATIVE APPROACHProposals must be partnerships between at least one HIF-funded WASH innovator, one academic/research institution and one operational humanitarian partner. Researchers will have the opportunity to develop novel research designs where needed and test them in humanitarian settings. The partnership requirement ensures that funded research is rigorous as well as based on operational experience and evidentiary needs for individual innovations.

Proposals are expected to consider how the partners will build decision points (‘go/no-go points’) into the project process and timeline to reflect on progress and hypotheses and decide whether to continue, end or adapt the research.

We expect researchers to identify any potential sources of bias in the approach or weaknesses in the findings, reflect on them openly and propose effective strategies to mitigate them. This includes any bias introduced by the innovator being part of the partnership. As a minimum, we expect a commitment to publishing results in peer-reviewed publications irrespective of what they might show about the innovation.

10

EVID

ENCE

CH

ALLE

NGE 3. APPROPRIATE TYPES OF EVIDENCE

Applicants are expected to develop a detailed plan that outlines the type(s) of evidence they intend on generating and why these are appropriate for innovators and the wider WASH sector.

Primarily, we are interested in evidence that can facilitate learning and help innovators improve and scale and/or replicate their innovation in other humanitarian settings or with other agencies. As a secondary outcome, we are interested in evidence that can add value to the wider WASH sector.

Key types of evidence and research questions could include, but are not limited to:

– Efficacy – Does the innovation work as intended in highly controlled circumstances?

– Effectiveness – Does the innovation lead to a measurable improvement in the relevant humanitarian outcomes?

– Sustainability – Did the innovation maintain measurable changes in behaviour, health or the environment over time? Did the innovation remain functional over time? What are the maintenance, repair, training or other long-term costs and requirements?

– Feasibility and fidelity – Was the innovation delivered as intended? Were there elements that were not possible to conduct in different contexts? Why? What components must be in place for the innovation to have an effect?

– Usability and acceptability – Do people/humanitarians use the innovation as intended? Do users 5 like the innovation and why? Is the innovation inclusive (see further details in 7. INTERSECTIONAL APPROACH)?

– Efficiency and cost – How much does it cost to use the innovation? If relevant, 6 does the innovation offer savings compared to alternative options (consider not just direct costs, but other costs such as staff or user time or other resources)? How does the cost compare to the outcomes (eg, in terms of health, environment or behaviour)?

4. APPROPRIATE RESEARCH METHODS We are looking for research studies with robust research designs that align with the type of evidence they aim to generate. The evidence generated should be reliable and of a high quality. Different evidence requirements will call for different research methods. For example, when evaluating usability, qualitative methods, specifically observation, are likely to be more useful; while when assessing effectiveness, quantitative methods become essential. We welcome quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research approaches. 7

5 Applicants interested in gathering evidence around usability and acceptability will be expected to define who their users are (eg, people affected by crisis, field staff, logistical staff, trainers).

6 Cost efficiency may not always be relevant to measure (eg, in cases where there has been no alternative solution to a problem).

7 See Section C of Blanchet K, et al. (2018) Using Research Evidence in the Humanitarian Sector: A practice guide. London, UK: Evidence Aid, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Nesta (Alliance for Useful Evidence) for examples of types of research methods, designs and approaches.

11

EVID

ENCE

CH

ALLE

NGE Alongside evidence requirements, we expect applicants to consider their

operational capacity, the constraints of their chosen humanitarian setting and the complexity and maturity of their chosen innovation. All these factors should also inform an appropriate selection of research methods and tools to generate relevant evidence. 8

Proposed research methods should be of a standard such that final papers will be publishable in peer-reviewed academic journals. Robust, innovative methods that advance research in humanitarian settings are encouraged. Successful applicants will also be expected to share interim insights at the 2022 HIF Innovation Forum.

5. ADAPTIVE RESEARCH DESIGNWe expect research studies to use and, where appropriate, develop new adaptive research methods that can be used to gather evidence in humanitarian settings. This could include hard-to-access settings, where research is particularly difficult. We are especially interested in research methods that allow innovators to adapt their innovations in a flexible way as insights are gathered, without sacrificing the integrity of the research and its results.

6. ETHICAL APPROACHResearch studies must consider the range of ethical implications of their proposed research method and project and how to mitigate any risks. Studies will be expected to consider the ethical issues that may arise during all phases of the research, including during research design, implementation, dissemination and research uptake activities. Local communities’ interest in engaging with the research, the perceived benefits and risks of the research, and how these will be shared or mitigated are all important considerations when research studies are being designed.

For information on how to ensure the ethical viability of research studies as well as sample ethics reflection questions, please consult Elrha’s R2HC Research Ethics Framework and Tool and the Principles and Ethics section in our Humanitarian Innovation Guide.

Successful applicants will be expected to obtain ethical approval from internal ethical review boards and government committees or equivalent mechanisms in each country that they will be conducting research.

8 See Assess Research Feasibility section in the Humanitarian Innovation Guide.

12

EVID

ENCE

CH

ALLE

NGE 7. INTERSECTIONAL APPROACH

We expect research study design to consider inclusivity and intersectionality when it comes to the access and use of the innovation, as well as data collection. Intersectionality recognises the interaction of multiple factors – such as disability, age and gender – which can create layers of discrimination and distinct perspectives for individuals. A person’s access to and participation in humanitarian programming and wider society is shaped by these interacting factors.

Research proposals are required to demonstrate how intersectionality will be addressed through the research process. Reflections on how the research outcome(s) will contribute to gender equality and social inclusion during humanitarian crises will be welcomed.

At a minimum, we expect studies to collect disaggregated data on gender, age and disability (UNHCR, 2018) or demonstrate why this is not possible or relevant, with the implications of this clearly stated. Applicants are expected to reflect on their user group and propose any additional relevant variables depending on their innovation, and/or geographic and humanitarian setting.

8. UPTAKE OF RESEARCH FINDINGSApplicants must outline in their full proposals how they plan to influence humanitarian policy and practice using their research findings. The project team will be expected to identify a lead(s) to drive research uptake activities. This individual(s) must have the relevant skills, knowledge and experience to be able to develop and deliver a plan for the research findings to influence change in policy and practice within the humanitarian sector. Each of the project partners will be expected to input into the development of this plan and contribute to research uptake activities.

By research uptake we mean all the activities that facilitate and contribute to the adoption and utilisation of evidence by researchers, practitioners and other humanitarian actors. This includes stakeholder engagement, capacity building, communication and the monitoring and evaluation of uptake. Please refer to Elrha’s R2HC Research Uptake Guidance Note for further information.

13

EVID

ENCE

CH

ALLE

NGE FUNDING AVAILABLE

We have a total budget of 950,000 GBP for this Challenge.

From this, we envisage funding a selection of research studies with varying budgets and duration. Grant payments will be made in instalments throughout the grant period.

The proposed budgets and project durations should align with the level of ambition of each individual project within the Challenge parameters. Each project will be assessed on its own merit, value for money and potential for impact.

Successful applications will have up to six months to prepare their study after the grant contracting is completed. This time can be used to prepare for finalising the design of the research method, obtaining ethical clearance, building partnerships or scoping testing locations.

All projects must be completed by December 2022 (no extensions permitted).

The total duration of projects should include the implementation of the research and any iteration of solutions, as well as research uptake activities, which may last 6–12 months.

WHAT CAN YOU SPEND THE MONEY ON?

Further information will be shared in our Eligible Cost guide during the later stages of application.

We can fund

�� implementation costs (including shipment) and project activities

�� material costs (ie, the production or development of the innovation)

�� innovation adaptation costs (ie, costs associated with any iterations informed by the research)

�� publication costs for research outputs

�� project-related staff salaries

�� project-related travel expenses.

We can’t fund

�� retrospective costs

�� loan repayments

�� running costs that are not related to the project

�� non-project-related materials or activities

�� standard humanitarian programming that is not related to the chosen innovation

�� construction of permanent structures.

14

EVID

ENCE

CH

ALLE

NGE STAGES OF WORK

In response to this Challenge, applicants will be expected to deliver the following stages of work:

– Refine evidence needs Innovators work together with researchers and humanitarian agencies to refine their understanding of the type and quality of evidence needed to support the adaptation and scale of their innovation. The team expand on the details given in their application and refine practical plans for the research study.

– Develop research model to generate evidence Researchers, in collaboration with innovators and humanitarian agency partners, develop and specify their selection of relevant research methods and approaches to generate the required evidence. The team explore and plan how to manage ethical issues and obtain the approvals needed.

– Safely and appropriately undertake research in humanitarian setting(s) The research is carried out in one or more humanitarian setting(s). Operational humanitarian partners are expected to advise and support on the research in context.

– Generate insights, opportunities and feedback This stage is expected to involve data analysis and formulation of findings. Early insights could be shared with the innovator as the research is ongoing to allow for iterations and improvements.

– Assess methods Appraise the effectiveness and replicability of the research model, methods and tools used, as well as the value and quality of the evidence generated.

– Ensure research uptake Create a range of diverse and adaptable outputs from the project to share key insights and evidence with a range of relevant audiences including local partners, any research participants, humanitarian innovators, researchers, governments and humanitarian agencies. Findings must be submitted for publishing in (a) peer reviewed journal(s).

15

EVID

ENCE

CH

ALLE

NGE CHALLENGE TIMELINE

The Challenge launches on 19 November 2019. The deadline for Expressions of Interest (EOIs) is 24 January 2020 at 23:59 GMT. Apply via the Common Grants Application platform.

There will be an optional webinar ( sign-up here ) for interested applicants on 5 December 2019, 14:30–16:00 GMT. The webinar will discuss frameworks and tools for assessing evidence needs for innovations and how to design adaptive research to address these. The webinar will be recorded and available on our website.

EOIs will be reviewed against the criteria outlined in this handbook. Shortlisted projects will be notified in the week commencing 10 February 2020. Shortlisted applicants should expect individual and group (eg, webinars) feedback between EOI and full proposal stages. It is mandatory for at least one representative from each shortlisted project to attend the online group feedback session.

All shortlisted projects will be invited to submit full proposals. The deadline for full proposals is 9 April 2020 at 23:59 BST. Full proposals will be reviewed by independent technical reviewers. The final project selection will be made by the HIF’s independent Funding Committee.

Successful applicants will be informed in June 2020.

Due diligence and contracting is expected to last six to eight weeks during July and August 2020. Should grantees wish to start working on refining their research models and obtaining ethical approvals before the Grant Agreement is signed, the HIF will cover project costs once the funding decision has been made in June 2020, with a view that grantees will take full financial liability for these costs until they have passed our due diligence and contracting is complete. Grantees will have up to six months to prepare their projects after contracting is completed.

APPLICATION

19 Nov 2019Challenge launch

5 Dec 2019Optional webinar

Jan 2020EOIs shortlisted

9 Apr 2020Full proposals due

Jun 2020Projects selected

Jul–Aug 2020Due diligence

Sep 2020Projects start

19 Nov 2019Challenge launch

5 Dec 2019Optional webinar

Jan 2020EOIs shortlisted

9 Apr 2020Full proposals due

Jun 2020Projects selected

Jul–Aug 2020Due diligence

16

EVID

ENCE

CH

ALLE

NGE

Sep 2020Projects start

Sep 2020–Dec 2022Projects ongoing

The projects are expected to start in September 2020, with a kick-off workshop organised by us either the week commencing 19 October 2020 or agreed individually with grantees.

Grantees will have between 12 and 28 months to carry out their projects. The total duration of projects should include up to six months of project preparation. All projects must be completed by December 2022 (including research uptake activities).

Sep 2020Projects start

Sep 2020 – Dec 2022Projects ongoing

Dec 2022 Grants close

PROJECT PHASE (12–28 MONTHS)

17

EVID

ENCE

CH

ALLE

NGE YOUR APPLICATION

To apply for this Challenge, register via our Common Grants Application platform accessible from the Challenge webpage. For more information and guidance on Elrha’s grant application process see our Application Guidance & Support page.

In filling out the EOI online, you will be expected to provide the following:

– Results from completed pilot projects to demonstrate potential for positive impact of your chosen WASH innovation.

– Indicative funding requested from the HIF. At the EOI stage, we only require an estimate of the total amount and duration. Successful applicants will be able to update this amount at the full proposal stage, and will be expected to provide a detailed budget and project plan.

– Brief details on your team including any confirmed or anticipated partners who will work on this project. At EOI stage, we are not expecting formalised relationships between all partners.

– Brief details about your study including:

• research questions and types of evidence you will prioritise, and why

• the comparative element of your evaluation

• research method (this can be refined at full proposal stage)

• possible humanitarian setting(s) in which to carry out the research, and why

• key activities and deliverables.

If invited to develop your EOI into a full proposal, you will be expected to adapt and expand on the EOI and answer a few additional questions about your evidence needs, research design, implementation and research uptake plans.

For the full list of requirements and details about the application process, please register via the Common Grants Application platform.

The projects selected for funding will be required to report on their progress via written reports, verbal conversations and/or possible monitoring visits. Details on the reporting requirements and timings will be shared at the contracting stage, as well as details of Elrha’s Incident Prevention and Management Policy procedures and feedback mechanisms.

18

EVID

ENCE

CH

ALLE

NGE EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

We want to ensure a transparent and clear evaluation process. This section describes how the criteria presented in this Handbook will be used to evaluate EOIs and full proposals.

EOI STAGEAt EOI stage, proposals will initially go through an eligibility screening conducted by the internal HIF team. If the answer to any of the below is ‘no’, the proposal will be rejected.

– Does the application focus on gathering evidence around at least one HIF-funded WASH innovation?

– Does the application 9 propose a collaboration between at least one HIF-funded WASH grantee, one academic or research institution and one operational humanitarian partner? 10

– Does the application provide evidence of having completed a pilot of the chosen HIF-funded WASH innovation in a humanitarian setting?

– Does the proposed research study include a comparison element (eg, comparison to the baseline, existing practice, existing standards, another innovation, or to the performance of the same innovation but in a different humanitarian setting)?

– Are the proposed duration of and the requested funding for the project within the parameters set out for the Challenge?

Proposals that pass this eligibility screening will be invited to submit a full proposal.

FULL PROPOSAL STAGEFor the full proposal stage, projects will be assessed by at least two technical reviewers and our independent Funding Committee using a weighted scoring system.

ASSESSMENT AREAS FOR REVIEWERS

The chosen WASH innovation (10%)

– Relevant and robust evidence of the potential positive impact of the chosen WASH innovation.

9 A formal collaboration agreement between the partners (eg, memorandum of understanding) will be required only at full proposal stage.

10 The academic or research institution as well as the operational humanitarian partner should be ‘new’ to the innovation (ie, should have not been part of the initial HIF-funded innovation project).

19

EVID

ENCE

CH

ALLE

NGE The approach (40%)

– Types of evidence: Relevant research questions and types of evidence both for scaling the chosen innovation and for generating insights for the humanitarian sector.

– Comparative: Suitable comparative element that will help answer the research questions and generate insights for the humanitarian sector.

– Research method: Appropriate for the types of evidence, replicable across humanitarian contexts, feasible given time and resources.

– Bias: Appropriate identification of potential biases and mitigation strategies.

– Adaptive: Extent to which the research method allows innovators to adapt their innovation without sacrificing the integrity of the research.

– Ethical: Consideration of ethical risks and mitigating actions.

– Intersectionality: Understanding of how intersectionality affects use or experience of chosen WASH innovation and the nature of the research and evidence collected.

Research uptake plan (10%)

– Transparent and user -centred uptake plan.

The team (30%)

– Strengths: Diverse and appropriate expertise and skills; understanding of humanitarian context(s) chosen.

– Collaborative: Close, honest and mutual learning relationship.

Ability to deliver (10%)

– Workplan: Realistic and feasible given the ambitions of the project and the Challenge timeline.

– Budget: Cost-effective and appropriate to deliver high-quality outputs.

20

EVID

ENCE

CH

ALLE

NGE GLOSSARY

Where a reference is given, these definitions are taken in whole from the source document.

EVIDENCEInformation that can be used to either justify or deny a hypothesis or claim (Miller and Rudnick, 2012). 11 See also INFORMATION.

EVIDENTIARY REQUIREMENTS The level of evidence required for proof for each category. In short, higher evidence standards (eg, higher quality, reliability, robustness, accuracy, and precision of data) are required to make claims about causal impact, or improvements over existing solutions, whereas lower evidence standards are required for reporting on coverage, functionality, project implementation, and lessons learned. 12

HIF WASH GRANTEEAny team/organisation or subcontractor that has received HIF funding to develop, test and iterate on a humanitarian WASH innovation. This includes all named stakeholders in the WASH Innovation Catalogue, but is not limited to these.

HUMANITARIAN SETTING Refers to different phases of humanitarian response (eg, rapid response, protracted emergencies, acute emergencies), site (eg, camp, urban), geography, environmental conditions, type of humanitarian crisis (including natural disasters, conflicts, or complex emergencies, either at the regional, national or sub-national levels, within lower or middle income countries), or characteristics of people interacting with the innovation (eg, age, disability, gender, cultural practices). See also HUMANITARIAN CONTEXT.

HUMANITARIAN CONTEXT More nuanced than the term ‘humanitarian setting’ and includes consideration of social norms, religion, demographics and political situation. See also HUMANITARIAN SETTING.

INFORMATIONThe facts and details learned about something, through study or experience. 13

11 See ‘Generate and integrate evidence’ section in the Humanitarian Innovation Guide.

12 See ‘Determine learning objectives’ section in the Humanitarian Innovation Guide.

13 See ‘Generate and integrate evidence’ section in the Humanitarian Innovation Guide.

21

EVID

ENCE

CH

ALLE

NGE INNOVATION

Humanitarian innovation can be defined as an iterative process that identifies, adjusts and diffuses ideas for improving humanitarian action. See more in our Humanitarian Innovation Guide.

INTERSECTIONALITYThis means the interaction of multiple factors, such as disability, age and gender, which can create multiple layers of discrimination, and, depending on the context, entail greater legal, social or cultural barriers. These can further hinder a person’s access to and participation in humanitarian action, and more generally, in society. 14

PILOTTesting a potential solution to learn whether and how it works in a complex real-world environment. 15

RESEARCH UPTAKEAll the activities that facilitate and contribute to the adoption and utilisation of evidence by researchers, practitioners and other humanitarian actors. This includes stakeholder engagement, capacity building, communication and the monitoring and evaluation of uptake. Please refer to Elrha’s R2HC Research Uptake Guidance Note for further information.

WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE (WASH) A collective term for programmes that focus on (1) ensuring access to safe water, (2) ensuring access and use of basic toilets and ways to separate human waste from contact with people and (3) nurturing good hygiene practices, especially handwashing with soap. While each is a separate field of work, they each depend on the presence of the other.

14 ADCAP, 2018. ‘Humanitarian inclusion standards for older people and people with disabilities.’

15 See ‘Pilot’ section in our Humanitarian Innovation Guide.

WE LOOK FORWARD TO RECEIVING YOUR APPLICATIONS!Submit your Expression of Interest via our Common Grants Application platform by 24 January 2020 at 23:59 GMT.

For any questions that are not covered in this Challenge Handbook, please get in touch with us at hif@elrha.org, referencing ‘Evidence Challenge’ in the subject line.